transport issues and the environment in latin america · transport issues and the environment in...

Transport Issues and the Environment in Latin

America

Ralph GakenheimerProfessor of Urban Planning, MIT

-- Oct. 21, 2010-

• --

Presentation Sequence

• Some Program Contrasts--Bogotá,México, Santiago and São Paulo

• Wider Urban Contrasts--8 World Cities 8 World CitiesWider Urban Contrasts

• The Tricky Case of Congestion Pricing

• The Challenges--Are We Meeting Them?

Program Contrasts:Bogotá, México, Santiago,

São Paulo•Initiatives are similar in different cities.

-BUT

•Variations in detail often mean widely different levels of achievement

•There is much to be learned from comparative studies

.

Transit Administration and Regulation

Contrasting experiences with bus regulation:

México Santiago São Paulo Bogotá

70s and before

Private Operators,

some regulation

Public operation, some

regulated private

operators

CMTC, Municipal Bus

Company operated main

lines, and subcontrat other

services

Private Operators subject to

control from the Ministry of

Transportation

80s Governments

takes over all

routes, Ruta-100

is created

Total privatization and

liberalization

Increase in the proportion of

lines operated by CMTC.

Initial BRT corridors and

trolleybuses were built

In 1987, regulation of urban

buses is transfered to

municipalities

is created trolleybuses were built.

90s Ruta-100 goes

bankrupt,

explosive growth

of informal transit

Strong move towards

government’s regulation

of private operators, route

bidding process

Privatization of Municipal

Public Bus Company.

SPTRans, an agency in

charge of transit planning and

management, is created

Municpality allowed three

fare levels according to level

of service to encourage fleet

renewal. Restrictions to the

import of new buses were

lifted.

2000s Government trying

to control informal

transit

Route associations

becoming formal firms,

international operators

moving in, integration with

subway

Working toward fare

integration.

New BRT lines being built.

Transmilenio is launched.

Fare integration with other

private operators.

, .

Colectivos: Mexico

• Tolerated since the 1950s--recognized in the 1960s • Licensed to service metro stations from 1969 • Needed because of failure of public transport • Advocated by the profession and the international banks

during the 70s--high service level wide coverage Each during the 70s--high service level, wide coverage. Each vehicle averages 700 passengers, 150 km./day

• Loose operating specifications and weak oversight • GENUINE DILEMMA

Travel Demand Management

México City Santiago Bogotá São Paulo

Name of the program

Hoy no Circula Restricción Vehicular Pico y Placa Rodizio

Hours of operation

5:00 – 22:00 7:00 – 19:00 7:00 – 9:00

17:00 – 19:00

7:00 – 10:00

17:00 – 20:00

Vehicles that Only vehicles built Only vehicles built All vehicles All vehicles

A comparison of traffic ban programs:

Vehicles that are subject

Only vehicles built before 1993

Only vehicles built before 1992

All vehicles All vehicles

% of these vehicles banned each day

20% 20% 40% 20%

Comments •Relative high cost of new vehicles From 1989

•has incentivated the purchase of old cars

• Fixed schedule

• From late 80s

• Low tariffs and a rotatory schedule (changes once a month) have reduced the incentives to buy secondary cars

• From 1998.

• Fixed schedule (changed once a year)

• From 1996.

• Only within central area

• Fixed schedule

to net importer.• México oes from net ex orter of used cars

Hoy No Circula: MexicoMixed Opinion: a Dialog

• Objectives both environmental and congestion oriented.

• México goes from net exporter of used carspgto net importer.

• ‘95 Estimate that 22% drivers get second vehicle

• But contributes to solving environment and congestion problem

km

Metros: Scale, Performance

Mexico City Santiago Sao Paulo

Number of lines 11 5 4

Total extension (km) 202 60 58 ( )

Passengers per year (million) 1,430 200 520

Passengers per km of alignment (million)

7.1 4.9 10.1

Average fare per passenger (US cents)

16.1 38.0 33.6

Mode Share (over motorized trips)

12% (1999) 7% (2001) 8% (1997)

Urban Transportation Modeling

México City Santiago Bogotá São Paulo

Models being used

EMME/2 ESTRAUS (developed in Chile), EMME2

EMME/2, Transcad, Tranus

MVA’s START

Who mantains the data?

Secretary of the Environment, DF

SECTRA, Ministry of Public Works

Secretary of Transportation of Bogota,

Secretary for Metropolitan Transportationthe data? Bogota,

Transmilenio.

Transportation

O/D surveys

Last one in 1994, which has some errors

Last one in 2002 Last one in 1997

Comments • Not enough resources to mantain the model

• Not very useful at present state

ESTRAUS is integrated with land-use model (MUSSA) and emissions model (MODEM)

START was adapted to SP for the formulation of a transportation plan for 2020 (PITU 2020)

Focus on the Two-Wheeler Dilemma

City

Region

GDP per capita (USS)

Population millions

Average annual growth rate

Density (population/ hectare)

Age distribution

Trip rate (trips/day)

Personal vehicles/1,000 pop.

Rail transit

Fare (USS)

Non-motorized transport

Public transport

Belo Horizonte

Latin America

$6,000

4.2

1.5%

4-63

26%<154%>65

1.43(1995)

225 4-wheelers22 2-wheelers

1 line metro

$0.30

5-7%(1995)

69%(1995)

Chennai

South Asia

$800

7

2.4%

59-288

26%<158%>60

1.24(1993)


1 line metro3 suburban rail

$0.10

44%

47%

Dakar

Africa

$1,500

2.5

3.2%

35

43%<155%<55

2.3(1998)

42

1 suburban rail

44%

45%

Kuala Lumpur

South East Asia

$8,000

4

2%

10-58

27%<154%>65

2.4(1997)


3 lines LRT2 sub rail

$0.20-0.60

NA

20%(of motorized)

Mexico City

Latin America

$7,500

18-23

2%

50-120

30%<155%>65

1.2-1.4(1994)

1108 2-wheelers

11 line metro

$0.20

NA(possibly 15%)

70%(of motorized)

Mumbai

South Asia

$1,200

18

3%

120-460

26%<156%>60

1.26


2 suburban railServices 3 lines

NA26% in 1981

88%(of motorized)

Shanghai

Asia

$4,200 (2000)

13-17

0.42%

14-460

12%<1512%<65

1.95(1996)

4-20 4-wheelers35 2-wheelers

3 metro lines

$0.12-0.50

72%(1995)

17%(1995)

Wuhan

Asia

$2,000

4-8.5

1%

10-160

16%<1512%>65

2.25(1998)


none

61%

22%

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. Source: World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Overview of Main Traits of Developing Countries.

www.wbcsd.org

Guayaquil, Ecuador

Carlos González B.; César Arias 2006 Courtesy of Cesar Arias. Used with permission.

Carlos González B.; César Arias 2006 Courtesy of Cesar Arias. Used with permission.

many transfersInade uate s stem com letion and buses,

TranSantiago: the Problems

Many agencies--national gov. dominance, no executive role

Inadequate system completion and buses,q y p many transfers

Only on-board ticket reading

Few dedicated lanes

Station stop door positions not indicated

CONGESTION PRICING DEFINITION

A charge on vehicle use levied atA charge on vehicle use levied at

points of congestion for the purpose of

reducing the number of vehicles below

congestion level ....... and collecting

revenue.

•Lar e Perimeter Scheme as in cities of Norwa .g ( y)

Types of Congestion Pricing

•Area Licensing Zone (ALZ) around Central Business District (as in London, formerly Singapore).

•Large Perimeter Scheme (as in cities of Norway).

•Area Coverage Scheme (as in Singapore).

•Street or Highway Lane Based Scheme (as in Houston).

•Purchase Taxes on Vehicles

Road Pricing A Broader and Different Concept

Possible by such means as:

•Gas Taxes •Purchase Taxes on Vehicles •Licensing, Highway Use or Other Periodical Charges •Parking Taxes

Not Congestion Pricing because they are not based on location and time of road use.

• Trip makers unaffected by the initiative

Institutional Links for Congestion Pricing

• Trip makers who will pay the tariff • Trip makers who will take other options • Trip makers who are disadvantaged by the initiative

• Trip makers unaffected by the initiative • City center retailers and employers • Transit concessionaries • Public transit agencies • Plans for the use of revenue • Responsible elected public officials

Public Acceptability:

What to Call Congestion Pricing?

• Congestion Pricing

• Value Pricing

• Rationing

• Externalities Charges

• “Fairness” Management

• Road Pricing

need for lar e investments such as Se undo Piso

Congestion Pricing SurveyMexico City, January 2004

Congestion Pricing – objectives

• Method to manage demand, and allocate road space efficiently between different modes by charging a fee.

• Improves utilization of present road capacity to reduceneed for large investments (such as Segundo Piso) ( g )g

• Implies that people pay a fee to reflect the “true costs” of car use in congested urban areas. These include: time delays due to congestion, pollution, fuel costs, road accidents, road maintenance and operation costs

• Increases efficiency of public transport (buses) • Raises revenues and can reduce fiscal deficit

This was the Introduction at the start of the survey sheet for those not familiar with Congestion Pricing.

Survey Questions and Responses

Total Mexican Respondents = 50

1) Are you familiar with the concept of congestion pricing?

Yes: 19 No: 25 Not Completely: 6 Familiarity with the issue of congestion pricing

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Yes No Not completely

Responses

No

. o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

Yes

50%

No

12%

Not

completely

38%

Courtesy of Anjali Mahendra. Used with permission.


1) How serious do you consider the problem of traffic congestion in Mexico City today?

Still not a problem 0 Reasonable problem 6 Problem in a critical stage 44

How serious is the problem of congestion in MC today?

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Still not a problem Reasonable

problem

Problem in a critical

stage

Responses

No

. o

f R

es

po

nd

en

ts

Still not a

problem

0%

Reason

able

problem

12%

Problem in

a critical

stage

88%


Nu

mb

er

of

res

po

nd

en

s

3) What do you think is the worst impact of traffic congestion in Mexico City? Please rank top 3 options.

Loss in productivity/quality of life ____ Travel delays ____ Road accidents _____ Air pollution _____ High fuel/infrastructure costs _____ Other _____

Ranking of Impacts Considered Important

45 50

ts

Rank 1 Road

accidents

2%

High

fuel/infrastruc

ture costs

6%

Other

0%


0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35

40 45

Lo

ss in

pro

du

ctivity/q

ua

lity

of

life

Air

po

llutio

n

Tra

ve

l d

ela

ys

Hig

hfu

el/in

fra

str

uctu

reco

sts

Ro

ad

accid

en

ts

Oth

er

Impacts

Nu

mb

er

of

res

po

nd

en

t

Rank 3

Rank 2

Rank 1 Loss in

productivity/q

uality of life

52% Air pollution

29%

6%

Travel delays

11%

Travel delays

Loss in productivity/quality of life (can be added up)


No

.o

fe

sp

on

de

nts

Best Way to Deal With Traffic Congestion in Mexico City

Top 3 Ranks for Preferred Policy Options

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Re

sp

on

de

nts

Rank 3

Rank 2

Rank 1


0

5

10

15

20

Option D Option F Option C Option A Option B Option E

Policy Measures Considered

No

. o

f R Rank 1

OPTIONS KEY A Reform parking policies, and introduce higher parking charges in congested area B Introduce congestion pricing, applicable either during peak hours or on certain congested city roads C Use traffic bans such as Hoy No Circula or Pico y Placa D Improve public transport, use physical restraints such as busonly lanes and pedestrian zones E Expand infrastructure and increase road capacity F Any combination of the above policies (you may suggest combinations)


No

.o

fR

es

p 44%

nd

en

ts

5) Best Option for Raising Revenue:

Which of the following do you think will be best for raising revenues? Please rank top 3. Option A _____ Option B _____ Option C _____ Option D _____ Option E _____

Ranking of Options Considered Best for Revenues

30

35

40

45

50

on

de

nts

Rank 3

Rank 1

Option B Option D

14%

Option C

12%

Option E

2%


0

5

10

15

20

25

Option B Option A Option D Option C Option E

Different Options Considered

No

. o

f R

es

po

Rank 2

Rank 1

44%

Option A

28%

14%



No

.o

fR

esp

on

en

ts

16%

6) Option Most Acceptable to Public

Which of the following do you think will be most acceptable to people? Please rank top 3.

Option A ___ Option B ___ Option C ___ Option D ___ Option E ____ Option F ____ Ranking of Options Most Acceptable to People

30

35

40

45

50

den

ts

Rank 3

Rank 1

Option D

37%

Option C

10%

Option B

2%

Option A

16%



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Option D Option E Option A Option C Option B

Policy Options

No

. o

f R

esp

on

d Rank 3

Rank 2

Rank 1

Option E

35%


ing

7) Stakeholder Group With Most Resistance to Congestion Pricing:

Who do you think will have the most resistance to a “pricing policy” such as A and B above?

Car owners ____ Colectivo / taxi drivers ____ Freight operators ____ Businesses ____ Other ____

Stakeholder Group Expected to Have Most Resistance to a Pric

Policy Ranks 1 or 2 Other

4% Business

6%


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Car owners Colectivo / taxi

drivers

Freight

operators

Businesses Other

Stakeholder Groups

No

. o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

Rank 3

Rank 2

Rank 1

Car

owners

49%

Freight

operators

10%

Colectivo /

taxi drivers

31%

Note: The respondents who chose the option “Other”, specified their choice as “Politicians”


8) Use of Pricing Revenues

How should the revenues from a pricing policy be spent? Please rank options from 1 4.

Road and public transport improvements _____ Tax reductions (e.g. tenencia) _____ Improving institutional capacity _____ General fund for health, education, welfare projects _____

Prerences for How Pricing Revenues Should be Spent

45

50 Rank 1

Tax

reduction

(e.g.


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Road and public

transport

improvements

General fund for

health, education,

welfare projects

Improving

institutional capacity

Tax reductions (e.g.

tenencia)

Options

No

. o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

Rank 3

Rank 2

Rank 1

General

fund for

health,

education,

welfare

projects

24%

Road and

public

transport

improvem

ents

60%

Improving

institutiona

l capacity

10%

(e.g.

tenencia)

6%


10) Biggest Challenges

What do think is the biggest challenge in implementing congestion pricing for Mexico City? Please rank options from 1 to 7.

Lack of funds _____ Public resistance _____ Fragmented institutions _____ Poor enforcement _____ Lack of alternatives to driving _____ Vandalism of traffic cameras and other installations _____ Political conflicts ______

Biggest Challenge for Pricing in Mexico City


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Pu

blic

resis

tan

ce

Po

litic

al

co

nflic

ts

Fra

gm

en

ted

institu

tio

ns

La

ck o

f

alte

rna

tive

s

to d

rivin

g

La

ck o

f

fun

ds

Va

nd

alis

m o

f

tra

ffic

ca

me

ras /

insta

llatio

ns

Po

or

en

forc

em

en

t Options

No

. o

f R

es

po

nd

en

ts

Rank 3

Rank 2

Rank 1


SUMMARY:The Challenges

• Congestion

• Inadequate Public Transit Services

• Urban Structure Problems--Urban Form vs. travel needs

• Economic Development--Need to Favor Freight, Mobilize the Labor Force

• Con estion Mana ement demand

SUMMARY:Solution Modes

• Public Infrastructure Expansion (including by public-private concession agreements)

• Congestion Management/demandg /gmanagement/congestion pricing

• Managing Formal and Informal Public Transport--system integration

• Land Use Planning for Urban Transport Efficiency

17 KM HR IN KUALA LUMPUR AND SAO PAULO

CChhaalllleennggee ##1:1: CCoonnggeessttiioonn

� WHAT FUTURE FOR CONGESTION? DEPENDS MORE ON SPEEDOF MOTORIZATION THAN THE LEVEL OF MOTORIZATION

� AVERAGE URBAN SPEEDS ARE LOW 9 KM/HR IN SEOUL AND SHANGHAI, 10 KM/HR IN BANGKOK, MANILA AND MEXICO 17 KM/HR IN KUALA LUMPUR AND SAO PAULO/

� AVERAGE COMMUTE TIMES IN MANILA 120 MIN., JAKARTA 82 MIN., BOGOTA 90 MIN., RIO DE JANEIRO 106 MIN.

� CHALLENGE: ENABLE AUTOMOBILE USE IN ITS MOST SOCIALLYEFFECTIVE ROLE

A ROLE FOR CAR SHARING IN DEVELOPING CITIES? USE OF NEW ELECTRONICS FOR TRAFFIC FACILITATION LIMITATIONS ON USE OF CARS IN CONGESTION AREAS CONGESTION PRICING?

50% in Dakar and Taipei, 40% in Caracas, 65% in Manila, 11% to

CChhaalllleennggee ##2:2: MMaannaaggiingng PPuubblliiccTTrraannssiitt aandnd FFoorrmmaall TTrraannssiittACCOUNTS FOR ABOUT 70% OF TRIPS IN MOST DEVELOPING CITIES

� WEAKENED BY POLITICAL AND FINANCIAL CONDITIONS, AND CONGESTION.

� UNAUTHORIZED TRANSIT HAS GROWN TO A LARGE PORTION OF THE MARKET IN MANY CITIES:

50% in Dakar and Taipei, 40% in Caracas, 65% in Manila, 11% to 56% in Mexico in 10 years

� CHALLENGES:

CREATE MANAGERIAL STRENGTH AND SOURCES OF FINANCING FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT

DESIGN AND ENACT SYSTEM INTEGRATION FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORT

ADOPT NEW MODES FOR MORE RAPID TRANSIT SERVICE

CChhaalllleennggee ##3:3: LLaanndd UUssee aandnd UUrrbbaannTTrraannssppoorrtt

� EXPLOSIVE DECENTRALIZATION OF URBAN ACTIVITIES TOWARD METROPOLITAN PERIPHERIES PERMITS ADJUSTMENT TO MORE AFFLUENT LIFESTYLES AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES

� THE PROBLEMS: SOCIAL FRAGMENTATION, ABSORPTION OF ARABLE LAND, INCREASED CONGESTION, INCREASED TRIP LENGTH POLLUTION, GLOBAL WARMING EMISSIONS, FUELLENGTH POLLUTION, GLOBAL WARMING EMISSIONS, FUEL CONSUMPTION

� CHALLENGES:

REDUCE EXCESSIVE URBAN DENSITIES, ADJUST TO MODERN TECHNOLOGIES WITHOUT CAUSING EXCESSIVE DECENTRALIZATION

DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND STANDARDS THAT CREATE CLUSTERING OF DEMAND ADAPTIVE TO MORE EFFICIENT TRANSPORTATION

THE LAST 25 YEARS.

CChhaalllleennggee ##4:4: FFooccuussiinngg MMoobbiilliittyy oonnEEccoonnoommiicc DDeevveellooppmmeenntt� POSITION MOBILITY TO INCREASE EFFICIENCY OF THE URBAN ECONOMY LOWERING PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION COSTS, MOBILIZING LABOR, EXPANDING AVAILABLE LABOR MARKET FOR INDUSTRY, FACILITATING EDUCATION

� TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS HAVE HIGH RATES OF RETURN: WORLD BANK SHOWS 18% TO 25% AVERAGES OVER THE LAST 25 YEARS.

� FUNDS ARE SHORT BUT HELP IS ARISING THROUGH PRIVATE CONCESSIONING AND ROAD SECTOR FUNDS. WORLD BANK LENT $2.5 TRILLION TO TRANSPORT, 60% OF IT FOR ROADS. FUNDS FOR MAINTENANCE ARE MORE DIFFICULT THAN FOR NEW PROJECTS . . .

� . . . . BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO DEAL WITH CONGESTED LINKS IN THE NETWORK WHILE EXPANDING THE NETWORK, AND NOT TO COUNT ON IT FOR SOLVING CONGESTION

� ENSURE COMPETITIVE BIDDING

CChhaalllleennggee ##5:5: MMaakkiinngg CCoonncceessssiioonnssWWoorrkk ffoorr RRooaadsds aandnd TTrraannssiittTHE EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN BASICALLY POSITIVE BUT THERE IS A CONTINUING NEED TO:

� “FORMALIZE” PARTICIPATING CONSORTIA

� ENSURE COMPETITIVE BIDDING

� MANAGE ADEQUATE ASSIGNMENT OF RISK

� ASSURE INTEGRATION OF SERVICE, FARE AND TOLLS

� PROVIDE ADEQUATE ENFORCEMENT OF SERVICE CONDITIONS

� REDUCE INCUMBENTS' ADVANTAGES

� RETAIN PUBLIC CONTROL OF THE OVERALL NETWORK

THANKS FOR

WATCHING…….AND

LISTENING…..and now,

COMMENTING!COMMENTING!

MIT OpenCourseWare http://ocw.mit.edu

22.081J / 2.650J / 10.291J / 1.818J / 2.65J / 10.391J / 11.371J / 22.811J / ESD.166J Introduction to Sustainable Energy Fall 2010

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

http://ocw.mit.edu

http://ocw.mit.edu/terms

transport issues and the environment in latin america · transport issues and the environment in...

Documents